Any thoughts on this? Let's go solely by translation, and assume the KJV was authorized by the Church and still had the deuterocanonicals. Almost all Protestants seem to think that the KJV is the bomb, and I was wondering if our DRV matches up to it.

Any thoughts on this? Let's go solely by translation, and assume the KJV was authorized by the Church and still had the deuterocanonicals. Almost all Protestants seem to think that the KJV is the bomb, and I was wondering if our DRV matches up to it.

The KJV was translated from texts that dated no earlier than the 12th century A.D. The texts were in such bad shape that the compilers of the texts and the translators of the KJV used.....thats right, the Vulgate and the DRB, to make corrections. Some passages in the KJV were not even translated, just lifted directly from the DRB.

The KJV was translated from texts that dated no earlier than the 12th century A.D. The texts were in such bad shape that the compilers of the texts and the translators of the KJV used.....thats right, the Vulgate and the DRB, to make corrections. Some passages in the KJV were not even translated, just lifted directly from the DRB.

but even as a protestant (which i was), i preferred the NASB or the NRSV to the King James. even if the translation were GREAT, the archaic language in which it's written is too many steps removed from our modern day english - and takes the message a step away from our understanding it.

i've heard nothing but good about the DR, and have found it to be extremely accurate.

__________________'I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.' csl

I personally enjoy the DR better. I have that on my computer along with the RSVC with on my desk. Last year a bunch of Protestants were handing out free KJV bibles. I showed them my Ignatius bible and told them the differences. They thought it was just the deutercanonicals. I explained some of the differences in translations. I also explained to them the formation of the OT canon. Many had no clue about this. They probably didn't expect a Catholic college student at a public University to have any knowledge of the Bible. I was glad to be late to class to spread the Truth.

As far as the New Testament is concerned...I applaud the KJV for being MORE honoring of Mary than the NAB....even our RSV CE.....why?

In Luke...KJV has the beautiful "Blessed art thou among women" after Gabriel says "Hail Full of Grace" another verse used in the Hail Mary....the DR contains it.... in some footnotes in RSV CE it is talked about...but at least KJV has that stance...yes, they use...favored one...but the NAB waters that down as well....which again... confuses me...as to why protestants cant see Mary as she truly is...blessed among women.

I have found that Protestants are King James Onlyists because the NIV and other versions delete sentences. However, the Douay-Rheims Bible contains sentences that are not even found in the King James Bible, so it baffles me why they would not see the older Latin Vulgate as more authoritive when it comes to translation of scriptures, then the King James Bible whose texts dates back only to the middle ages.

My "official" Bible is a Confraternity Version (Old and New Testaments- it's out of print ) which was the Church's last attempt to update the Douay Rheims (DR). Alas, the project was left unfinished (several OT books left intact) and work started on the NAB. While being more modern (and readable) the NAB has been a dis-service to Catholic laymen (especially the book intros and some of the notes).

The best things about the DR and KJV is that they give you many more words, phrases and even whole verses that modern Bibles drop out. Also, the DR is the only Catholic bible free from the stain of liberalism. The RSV has always been considered to be a liberal bible in evangelical circles. It tells you how bad the Catholic bibles have gotten if our RSV-CE is considered a conservative bible (and compared to the rest it is!)

My only complaint about the DR is the translations of names and places in the OT makes it hard for a former evangelical like myself to follow the stories. I can understand Isaia is Isaiah (that's easy), but sometimes I have to go back to other bibles to see who is being talked about in the text.

One thing that I am disappointed in with both the DR and the KJV is that they use the term Hell for both of the Greek terms Hades and Gehenna. The distinction between Hades, a.k.a. Purgatory and Gehenna a.k.a. Hell, is an important one in that it helps to establish the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Several Protestant versions, including the NIV, do make the distinction, althought most Protestants I've talked to don't (obviously) understand the distinction or have really never noticed it.